=======================================================================
1. Feb. 20, 1995 letter by Robert Probasco, to Superintendent Jack Hill
20 February 1995
Dr. Jack Hill, Superintendent
Moscow Public Schools
Moscow, ID 83843
Dear Dr. Hill:
I am concerned about the quality and attitudes of the Moscow Public
Schools. In a nutshell, I believe our schools encourage failure. More
importantly, I believe the teacher and administrators are ignoring this
catastrophe, rather than working to correct it.
We removed our son from MJHS after one semester, in January, 1994. For
the past year Joe has attended Royal Garrison School in Pullman, with much
more success. Joe is very bright, though he is mildly ADD, and the
academic and social mores of the Moscow Public Schools were detrimental to
his development.
When Joe began public school in 1986 (1st grade, Lena), I involved myself
with his schooling. I spent a couple years on Lena's Parents Advisory
Board, participated in some textbook selection committees, volunteered in
the classroom, and generally became acquainted with the school personnel.
Many of Joe's teachers and administrators seemed first-rate, and I was
encouraged because I believed we could help Joe have a positive school
experience.
Naturally, my expectations were based on my own public school experiences
from the 1950s. Those stereotypes were shattered in the first months of
his schooling, when I witnessed the new paradigms of modern education.
OK, I thought we can cope with this, since thousands of other pupils have
coped with it. But I did not realize how devastating the order had
become.
Sure, I had read about the changes in schools, even discussed them with
other parents. I still believed a good home environment could supplement
a credible school environment, and the result would be satisfactory. The
flaw in this formula was the "credible school environment." There is
virtually nothing credible in an environment which abets failure. The
Moscow schools reward failure.
I could cite many revelations which have led me to this shocking
conclusion, but I will confine myself to two instances. First, in a GT
meeting with parents and Connie Hall (in the MHS library, possibly during
the spring of 1993), she asserted Idaho school policy prohibited retaining
students below the ninth grade without parental consent. I was astonished
by this allegation, so I called Boise and spoke to Gus Hein, who told me
that was a local policy. When I related my conversation to Connie, she
was surprised, and told me other Idaho districts had told her it was a
state policy. Whose purposes are being served by promulgating this
fiction? What other fictions are current?
The second instance was the straw which broke the camel's back. In the
fall of 1993, after a few months of MJHS, Joe was failing seventh grade
math. I called the MJHS and asked a secretary when Joe would retake the
course. Her answer left me speechless: the teachers would confer among
themselves and decide whether it would benefit the pupil to retake the
class. In virtually all cases, the teachers decided to pass the child on
to the next class. Social promotions are the rule.
What is going on? What is the current definition of a school? Why do
other Moscow parents/teachers/administrators/board members share my
concern, but we seem unable to fix anything?
I understand some of the modern problems which require schools to
function differently than a 1950s school. I do not understand why our
schools act so impotent. A minimum level of discipline seems mandatory to
complete rudimentary educational goals. Are the schools unwilling to
maintain this level?
When the last school bond levy was passed, I was pleased, as I had worked
to help pass it. My experience in the Moscow schools convinced me our
hard-working teachers and administrators deserved better facilities to
achieve their goals. While I still believe that, I have come to realize
their catastrophic policies and traditions will prevent them from
realizing a credible percentage of their goals.
As UI instructor, I have listened to numerous HS graduates reflect on
their schooling. My probing questions do not provide answers which please
me. The problems are hardly unique to Moscow, but the intellectual
climate of Moscow may help conceal how much potential is wasted in our
brick warehouses.
A few specific comments about MJHS seem appropriate. When we attended
both orientations in August, 1993, we saw the cheerleaders strut their
stuff, and heard about extra-curricular activities, and the facilities
were opened for us to inspect. However, I don't remember any statements
about academic policies or expectations, and the assignment book was never
mentioned. The Information Hotline was heralded, but its execution was
very spotty; has it now been dropped? Parental involvement is a great
phrase, but it's a two-way street.
The Royal Garrison School has a wonderful technique to convince students
to take responsibility for their education. Every Wednesday is a vacation
day--unless assignments are not finished or quiz scores are too low.
Great incentive to work completed correctly.
On 1 November 1993, I sent a letter to Jack Hill (copies to Sue Zoller and
Matt Graves) about my concerns at Moscow's homework policy. That letter
went unanswered, so I'll give this letter wider dispersion. Perhaps I do
not understand the difficulties you face. If so, please enlighten me. I
once believed the voucher system was badly flawed. I now wonder if
anything could be worse than the current debacle.
Sincerely,
Robert Probasco rcp@uidaho.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
cc: Carol Jones, MEA President Moscow School Board
Lena Whitmore School Elaine Vincenti Karen Falke
Russell School John Danahy Joe Geiger
MJHS Dawn Fazio
=====================================================================
2. March 2, 1995 letter from Alan T. Lee, MJHS principal to Jack Hill
Dr. John Hill, Superintendent
School District #281
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Dr. Hill:
Mr. Robert Probasco, in his recent letter to you, voiced his opinion that
the school district and the junior high, specifically, are encouraging
failure. He bases his opinion upon a variety of references, some of which
are supported with cited incidents.
Mr. Probasco states that his son was failing school during the first
semester of grade seven. He relates a story of learning school academic
retention procedure from a school secretary and being distressed. I
regret that I was not alerted to his belief about our procedures. Had he
discussed this with the counselors, Mr. Verdal, or me, he would have
learned the true procedure regarding student failure.
The grade/subject retention procedure does involve a student's teachers,
counselor, and parents in collaboration to determine the best academic
course for the individual child. Research based information regarding
retention is provided, options are discussed, and recommendations from
each participant are stated. In no case do we overrule the parent if
their desire is in opposition to the professional recommendation. Had Mr.
Probasco elected to have his son remain in the junior high school, he
would have been accorded due opportunity to help set the program for his
son.
Our orientation for new grade seven students includes a description of the
rigor required for academic success at the junior high. Guidance is given
in regard to the expected increase in homework, and to the school's
"Assignment Book". The latter is considered so important that we expend
funds each year to assure that each new grade seven student receives a
copy without charge. The "Student Handbook" also refers to the need to
complete academic work and to the assignment book.
Mr. Probasco criticizes the execution of the "Information Hotline", a
frustration that he had early in the school year and communicated several
times. I, too, hoped that there would be an improvement in communication
with its use, but it is technology that proved to be deficient in design
and resulted in an inefficient commitment of teacher time. I did not
_order_ teachers to use it, choosing to believe that if it was beneficial
it would be used. Few teachers found it to be the best way to provide
feedback to parents. It is no longer used here.
Mr. Probasco is quite willing to criticize the Moscow public schools, but
seems to know little of the system's laudable successes. I respect his
desire for students to learn. I believe that our district and school
goals are indicative of a school system that is aiming at high quality in
education. I am pleased to know that his son is prospering in his new
school environment.
Respectfully,
Alan T. Lee Principal
cc: (same list as the original letter, plus Robert Probasco)
=====================================================================
3. Observations by Robert Probasco
A. The MJHS secretary's opinion about retention seems correct; Alan Lee
describes the more official method to achieve the same end. This seems to
justify my original assertion that Moscow schools reward failure by
subscribing to social promotion.
B. Alan Lee does not address my assertion the schools have the legal
authority to retain students before the ninth grade.
C. Alan Lee acknowledges the Information Hotline was not supported.
There was no alternative implemented to fill the void.
D. The orientation session described by Alan Lee was apparently a
different session that the sessions we parents attended.
E. Alan Lee seems to feel the current school situation is quite
satisfactory, even exceptional. In a positive sense.
---------------------------------------------
F. Although the second letter indicated a copy was to be sent to me, I did
not receive it until I queried my school board rep (long-time friend John
Danahy), who traced the oversight to a secretarial misunderstanding.
G. At least two school principals copied and distributed my letter to
their staff and Parent Advisory Board. I learned this when a parent
commented to me how my letter had shaken things up at school.
H. John Danahy's informal chats with school teachers gathered the
impression that a substantial number of the teachers supported my
assertion: the Moscow schools do abet failure. These teachers feel as
frustrated as I feel.
I. The Moscow High School does not engage in social promotion, apparently.
(The Alternative HS is a factor in this.) I believe this is a tardy
attempt to correct the patterns established in grade school and JHS.
J. Of the several letters I've written to Moscow school personnel, this is
the only written reply I've received. (There have been several email
responses, recently.)
Robert Probasco rcp@uidaho.edu